Church Attendance

General Christian Theology
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14451
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Bootstrap »

Valerie wrote:BUT I will say since no one from the Reformation era was there during the time the Apostles were baptizing thousands- then they really cannot say with certainty whether infants and children were included or not- and I will say too that the Orthodox believe the Scriptures support it so both Oral, and Written support what I have read was an Apostolic tradition- and of course, the people we all trust to have canonized the Scriptures, are the ones that make the claim.
This kind of claim would prevent me from joining a church. I find both of these offensive: (1) the idea that one denomination has a secret decoder ring that allows them to claim their teaching was part of an oral tradition that nobody has access to, and (2) the idea that one denomination is the True Church and the rest of are all just rebelling against that denomination by not joining it.

I'm very happy to embrace Orthodox brethren as members of the Kingdom of God if they are disciples of Jesus Christ. That involves swallowing some of my understandings of Scripture. I hope they can swallow a few of their understandings too.
Last edited by Bootstrap on Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Sudsy »

Hats Off wrote:I would take offense at anyone suggesting that I am no more baptized than one who has never been baptized. I was baptized upon the confession of my faith.
So, do you think what Paul wrote in Romans 6 is applicable by other modes like sprinkling or pouring when the picture here is about what has already taken place in Spirit baptism ? Here is one of the paraphrases -
When we went under the water, we left the old country of sin behind; when we came up out of the water, we entered into the new country of grace—a new life in a new land! That’s what baptism into the life of Jesus means. When we are lowered into the water, it is like the burial of Jesus; when we are raised up out of the water, it is like the resurrection of Jesus.
I, too, believe in believer's baptism but seems there is a line drawn that no water baptism is disobedience but baptism that doesn't picture what Paul says it should by immersion is not disobedience. Like are we obedient when we use real wine in communion but disobedient when we use grape juice or pepsi, etc. ? Or are we obedient when we lift our hands in prayer and disobedient when we don't ? Seems the argument for immersion might have more support than using wine and lifting hands but my point is that we can be disobedient depending on where we decide to draw the line in areas of our orthopraxy.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
ken_sylvania
Posts: 3975
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: Church Attendance

Post by ken_sylvania »

Sudsy wrote:
Hats Off wrote:I would take offense at anyone suggesting that I am no more baptized than one who has never been baptized. I was baptized upon the confession of my faith.
So, do you think what Paul wrote in Romans 6 is applicable by other modes like sprinkling or pouring when the picture here is about what has already taken place in Spirit baptism ? Here is one of the paraphrases -
When we went under the water, we left the old country of sin behind; when we came up out of the water, we entered into the new country of grace—a new life in a new land! That’s what baptism into the life of Jesus means. When we are lowered into the water, it is like the burial of Jesus; when we are raised up out of the water, it is like the resurrection of Jesus.
I, too, believe in believer's baptism but seems there is a line drawn that no water baptism is disobedience but baptism that doesn't picture what Paul says it should by immersion is not disobedience. Like are we obedient when we use real wine in communion but disobedient when we use grape juice or pepsi, etc. ? Or are we obedient when we lift our hands in prayer and disobedient when we don't ? Seems the argument for immersion might have more support than using wine and lifting hands but my point is that we can be disobedient depending on where we decide to draw the line in areas of our orthopraxy.
This demonstrates one of the problems with "paraphrase translations." The Greek text doesn't say anything about being lowered into the water. It does talk about being buried with him, but there is absolutely no indication that this requires a particular mode of baptism. One could just as well point to the fact that the Spirit was "poured out" to demand that baptism be by pouring. After all, the Hebrews were "baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea," but it was the Egyptians who were immersed, not the Hebrews.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14451
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Bootstrap »

ken_sylvania wrote:This demonstrates one of the problems with "paraphrase translations." The Greek text doesn't say anything about being lowered into the water. It does talk about being buried with him, but there is absolutely no indication that this requires a particular mode of baptism. One could just as well point to the fact that the Spirit was "poured out" to demand that baptism be by pouring. After all, the Hebrews were "baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea," but it was the Egyptians who were immersed, not the Hebrews.
The Didache is not Scripture, but it is one of the earliest writings we have (50-120AD), and probably a good understanding of how they understood it:
1 Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, "baptise, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," in running water; 2 but if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. 3 But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head "in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." 4 And before the baptism let the baptiser and him who is to be baptised fast, and any others who are able. And thou shalt bid him who is to be baptised to fast one or two days before.
By running water, it means something like a river, not something like a faucet. And there seems to be some flexibility.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
ken_sylvania
Posts: 3975
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: Church Attendance

Post by ken_sylvania »

Bootstrap wrote:
ken_sylvania wrote:This demonstrates one of the problems with "paraphrase translations." The Greek text doesn't say anything about being lowered into the water. It does talk about being buried with him, but there is absolutely no indication that this requires a particular mode of baptism. One could just as well point to the fact that the Spirit was "poured out" to demand that baptism be by pouring. After all, the Hebrews were "baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea," but it was the Egyptians who were immersed, not the Hebrews.
The Didache is not Scripture, but it is one of the earliest writings we have (50-120AD), and probably a good understanding of how they understood it:
1 Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, "baptise, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," in running water; 2 but if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. 3 But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head "in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." 4 And before the baptism let the baptiser and him who is to be baptised fast, and any others who are able. And thou shalt bid him who is to be baptised to fast one or two days before.
By running water, it means something like a river, not something like a faucet. And there seems to be some flexibility.
I think it is more likely than not that the early church was accustomed to baptizing in streams, ponds, etc. I've seen enough hair-splitting and proof-texting (as well as whatever it is that you call it when a person builds doctrine off of the particular phraseology of the KJV when the Greek doesn't support such a construction) in support of specific modes to be thoroughly sick of the matter. I do think it's good for any given church group to have a standardized practice, but I can recognize any mode that is in accordance with scripture. Seems to me the scriptural command is fairly clear and direct, (1) Believe, (2) Repent, and (3) Be Baptized. Infant baptism ignores (1) and (2), Salvation Army ignores (3).
0 x
Hats Off
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:42 pm
Affiliation: Plain Menno OO

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Hats Off »

ken_sylvania wrote:[
This demonstrates one of the problems with "paraphrase translations." The Greek text doesn't say anything about being lowered into the water. It does talk about being buried with him, but there is absolutely no indication that this requires a particular mode of baptism. One could just as well point to the fact that the Spirit was "poured out" to demand that baptism be by pouring. After all, the Hebrews were "baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea," but it was the Egyptians who were immersed, not the Hebrews.
Thanks, Ken - just liking your post was not enough.
0 x
appleman2006
Posts: 2455
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:50 pm
Affiliation: Midwest Mennonite

Re: Church Attendance

Post by appleman2006 »

Hats Off wrote:I would take offense at anyone suggesting that I am no more baptized than one who has never been baptized. I was baptized upon the confession of my faith.
And I would go even further and say that anyone who would suggest that you were not baptized has a very wrong understanding of what baptism is.
0 x
MaxPC
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:09 pm
Location: Former full time RVers
Affiliation: PlainRomanCatholic
Contact:

Re: Church Attendance

Post by MaxPC »

appleman2006 wrote:
Hats Off wrote:I would take offense at anyone suggesting that I am no more baptized than one who has never been baptized. I was baptized upon the confession of my faith.
And I would go even further and say that anyone who would suggest that you were not baptized has a very wrong understanding of what baptism is.
Amen!
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35
Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Valerie »

MaxPC wrote:
appleman2006 wrote:
Hats Off wrote:I would take offense at anyone suggesting that I am no more baptized than one who has never been baptized. I was baptized upon the confession of my faith.
And I would go even further and say that anyone who would suggest that you were not baptized has a very wrong understanding of what baptism is.
Amen!
So we see how it feels for Christians who were baptized as infants, to be told that their baptism was not valid.
Do we not feel that those who have remained in Christ may feel this same offense or hurt for being told their baptism didn't count?
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Valerie »

Bootstrap wrote:
Valerie wrote:BUT I will say since no one from the Reformation era was there during the time the Apostles were baptizing thousands- then they really cannot say with certainty whether infants and children were included or not- and I will say too that the Orthodox believe the Scriptures support it so both Oral, and Written support what I have read was an Apostolic tradition- and of course, the people we all trust to have canonized the Scriptures, are the ones that make the claim.
This kind of claim would prevent me from joining a church. I find both of these offensive: (1) the idea that one denomination has a secret decoder ring that allows them to claim their teaching was part of an oral tradition that nobody has access to, and (2) the idea that one denomination is the True Church and the rest of are all just rebelling against that denomination by not joining it.

I'm very happy to embrace Orthodox brethren as members of the Kingdom of God if they are disciples of Jesus Christ. That involves swallowing some of my understandings of Scripture. I hope they can swallow a few of their understandings too.
No one claims to have a 'secret decoder ring' Boot- of course there is Oral and Written tradition, the Apostle said so, in Scripture- you have a hard time with that I realize- that does not make it, not so- it is Scriptural. The 'rebellion' happened in the west and is understandable why it happened and we are seeing the result of that rebellion in the Church's fragmentation into an unrecognizable unity of faith- you don't mind that, I know- but it certainly explains a good reason why the 'falling away' precedes the Lord's return.
0 x
Post Reply